1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3. Brief facts of the case are that, Mr. Junaid Ahmad, Foodgrains Supervisor, the appellant was posted at Sartaj Flour Mills from 8‑3‑1976 and was holding joint charge of Government stocks with Rana Abdul Hamid Foolgrains Inspector. Mr. Aslam Pervez; Foodgrains Inspector joined the Sartal Flour Mills on 19‑4‑1977 and relieved Rana Abdul Hamid, Food Inspector. On his report the checking of accounts revealed a shortage of 27562.341 kgs. Both Messrs Rana AbdI11 Hamid, F. I, and Junaid Ahmad, F. S. were given show‑cause notice on 30‑5‑1977. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Storage Officer (R), Lahore and both the officials were held responsible for the Government loss. Consequently notice was issued to both the officials on 19‑5‑1979 for depositing loss of Rs. 34.177.29 in equal proportion towards the shortage of wheat by the District Food Controller (R) Lahore. The recovery of Rs. 17,088.65 was affected from Rana Abdul Hamid, F. I. but the appellant filed an appeal on 18‑6‑1979 to the Deputy Director Food, Lahore Region, Lahore, which was, rejected vide his order dated 9‑8‑1982. The recovery of Rs. 2,465 was effected from the appellant and Rs. 14,623.65 is still pending against him. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the procedure as laid down under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, has not been followed in this case and the impugned orders so issued are unlawful and uncalled for. Total responsibility of the stocks fell on Rana Abdul Hamid, Food grain Inspector who was incharge of the stocks at the said Sartaj Mills. The charge of the stocks was held by Rana Abdul Hamid the said Foodgrain Inspector and was handed over by the said Foodgrain Inspector to his successor. Therefore, the entire responsibility lies on him. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that said Abdul Hamid had undertaken to make good the loss and had admitted the dereliction. Therefore, there was no occasion for the authorities to have put the responsibility of shortage on the appellant. This all has happened due to the reasons that the appellant was not proceeded properly under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. No regular enquiry was held. Had a regular enquiry been conducted, the matter would have become crystal clear and the appellant would not have been held responsible for the, shortage ? Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been punished without any fault of his and the impugned orders be set aside.

5. Controverting these arguments the learned District Attorney submitted that a preliminary' enquiry was held and the appellant was found responsible for the loss in the stock. Thus, the recovery has been ordered against him correctly.

6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case: We have also gone through the preliminary enquiry report so relied upon by the learned District Attorney and the respondents. It has been observed that the enquiry report is incomplete, has not been held properly and is slipshod. This was a matter regarding joint handling of the stocks by the two officials of the Food Department and in a matter of such dispute, conducting of a regular enquiry, was must and necessary to find out the truth of the case. Further more, the District Food Controller (R), Lahore should not have based his decision on the basis of the preliminary enquiry report which was not complete. The Enquiry Officer did not justify his recommendations of findings, as is clear from his preliminary enquiry report reproduced below :‑ "Subject : Preliminary Enquiry Report. The undersigned was asked to make a preliminary enquiry to find out real culprits responsible for a shortage of 27,562.341 Kgs. of wheat in stocks at ex‑Sartaj Roller Flour Mills, vide District Food Control ler (R), Lahore Note dated 15‑1‑1979. I have made a thorough probe into the case. Messrs Rana Abdul Hamid, Foodgrains Inspector and Junaid Ahmad, Foodgrains Supervisor the then Incharge of the Mill were directed to give their statements but both of them showed a different attitude. However after strenuous efforts they gave their statements which are placed below. In my view both the above‑named officials are entirely responsible to make good the loss of 27,562.341 Kgs. of wheat."

7. The proper procedure as laid down under the Punjab Civil Servant (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975, was also not followed, as the appellant was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing by the District Food Controller (R), Lahore, when the recovery was ordered by him vide his impugned order dated 19‑5‑1979.

8. Keeping the above analysis in view, the impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the Authority to proceed against the appellant afresh strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975. The appellant be also given an opportunity to defend himself by adopting the procedure of holding a regular enquiry so that no injustice is done with him. There will be no orders as to costs. Case remanded.